Book Review – Smith & Wesson Model 76 SMG by Frank Iannamico

Available from Amazon or direct from the publisher.

Frank Iannamico’s new book on the Smith & Wesson Model 76 submachine gun is in fact a book about much more than just the Model 76. It begins with several sections on earlier S&W 9mm carbines, like the 1940 “Light Rifle” and 1945 SMG. These sections taken alone are the most informative material on these guns published anywhere, to the best of my knowledge. The book then continues to discuss the history, development, and variations of the Swedish M45/B submachine gun, aka the Swedish K (including the Egyptian licensed copy, the Port Said).

Only at this point does the book move to the S&W 76 itself. The gun’s development and history are covered, including a look at a variety of experimental variations that were considered during the toolroom prototyping of the design. It’s production, marketing, and accessories are discussed (especially suppressors), including a section on an experimental project using the 76 as the basis for an electronically fired caseless ammunition project (neat!).

This is followed by sections on the semiauto and fully automatic copies and clones of the gun which appeared throughout the 1980s and 1990s. As the S&W itself was only in production from 1968 until 1974, there was a lot of time and opportunity for aftermarket companies to make their own versions.

Overall, the book as a very nice reference guide for anyone who owns a true S&W 76 or one of its copies. The information on the other S&W predecessors and the Egyptians and Swedish guns is equally valuable in my opinion, as solid information on these guns is difficult to find elsewhere. I do wish that there was a bit more tabulated data – for example information on specific production numbers and timetables. Still, anyone who owns one of the guns or is interested in them) will find this book worth the cost of a couple stick magazines ($49.95 list price), which is a good way to consider it.


  1. As ever an interesting video. One thing i’d like too comment though. It’s a bit harsh and even wrong to say that Sweden supported North-Vietnam during the war. They just didn’t want to support the USA in what they (and many others, even in the USA) saw as an unjust war.

    • De facto at the very same time when Swedish Premier Olof Palme did bash the US for Vietnam, he ensured that Swedish military officers were present at US staffs and those officiers did participate in planning the very operations that Palme back at home in Stockholm did cures to the lowest tiers of Hell …on the other hand, according to recently availble documents, Palme’s government did sell nuclear tech and weapons tech to the Soviets. During those days Sweden’s ASEA was at the cutting edge of nuclear tech until Sweden did introduce the thought ban on nuclear technology.

    • During the Cold War Sweden wanted to maintain the status of an “armed neutral;” they basically didn’t want to seen as favoring one side over another, so they didn’t want to be seen favoring the U.S. or North Vietnam. They maintained their own armaments industry all through this period, hence for their Air Force they had SAAB aircraft with Volvo jet engines. They also maintained their neutral stance during WWII, and all during that time were afraid that the Germans or the Russians were possibly going to invade as they both did in the neighboring countries Norway and Finland.

    • Ian may have mis-spoken. On the other hand, recall that the policy makers in the Cold War United States really, really abhorred neutrality given the very Manichean view of the world, and equated neutralism with effective support for the “evil empire.” That the United States leaders for a time refused to countenance that there really was a Sino-Soviet split, for example, or that the French should be supported in Indochina because at the same time the U.S. was fighting communists in Korea and aiding the Chi-Nats in Taiwan and that doing so was not propping up European colonialism in a de-colonizing world, but instead was fighting communism emanating from Moscow really reveals the degree of delusion.

      By far the bloodiest hot wars of the “Third World War” were in the Asian “rimlands” of the Eurasian land-mass. I think the only two examples of a guerrilla movement transforming into a combined arms mobile field army were the Chi-com PLA and the Viet Minh?

  2. Cold war = pretext to send tax victims’s hard earned £/$ into coffers of political-military-industrial complex and it’s bankers and share holders.

    And adding a little street theatre and death of the first born, to obscure the process and its purpose; enrichment of a few at the expense of the many.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.